New Health & Safety Legislation

[Perry]

But the Government reaction is to hold Directors accountable - at least for the health and safety part.

But not the shareholders, right? Because we know
who that would be in the Pike River case! The very
same gummint enforcing this crap and who probably
told the Pike River Directors to ensure the gummint
got a bigger annual dividend.

[Viking]

Was not a Govt. owned property.

[Perry]

So? What's that got to do with it?

State owned mining company Solid Energy

[Wayne]

But not the shareholders, right? Because we know
who that would be in the Pike River case!

I was a shareholder in Pike River - lost my money - explosion etc not my fault!

[Wayne]

Given that most houses are built on sections with some slope, I would say that most single-storey houses have >= 3 meters from ground to roof edge. I can see only one type of houses that has less than 3m: a house that sits on a concrete slab on a very flat section - it will probably have a floor level of 30cm above ground, so 2.4m + 0.3m - 0.2m (allowance for eaves) = 2.5m from ground to roof edges.

I will admit I was thinking concrete slab on ground (how most new houses are built in Hamilton these days).
Certainly piles will raise it somewhat.

[pooky]

An interesting article on Directors - now 'officers' and H&S. Worth a read.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/business/76115506/health-and-safety-fears-unfounded

[Perry]

What is important is that principals ensure teachers actually follow the procedures
that are put in place for camps, playgrounds, and other outdoor activities.

I wonder how that would work in practice? E.g. if two classes were on two camps
at the same time, but at differing venues, how could the Principal supervise both?

[pooky]

A link that may be useful - finally

http://www.business.govt.nz/news/newsarchive/july-2015/busting-six-myths-about-health-and-safety-reforms

[Wayne]

I's take issue with this one

Paperwork does not equal managing risk, and managing risk does not equal
paperwork. You only need documents if this is the best way to manage and
minimise critical risks. Putting things in writing is a useful tool for good
communication, but what’s most important is for you and your employees to
discuss safety management.

Without the paper work how do you prove that you had the discussion?

I was on a worksite yerterday - everyone who came on the 'site' (it was on the street but segmented off) signed the form that said they received the briefing.
Very low work effort and logical, I thought, so likely to succeed.

[Perry]

The whole thing is the proverbial crock of crap.

Supposedly, it's been prompted by the Pike River mine tragedy.

Back then, we had blenglish exhorting SOE Directors to "work smart," to increase their dividend payments to the govt. Maybe cutting safety costs were part of giving blenglish what he was demanding: more stealth tax to play with? If it was - then, true to form - the Directors got the blame, rather than the blood sucker on the Treasury benches.

Now, we have a lot of talk about playing rugby and early-onset dementia. Will rugby union Directors be held responsible for that malaise, now or in the future?

School Principals speak of moving their assets into a Trust, as part of risk minimisation. (Much the same as politicians do, BTW) Company Directors are resigning to reduce their risks (Peter Jackson).

There is almost no real merit in this crock. Wayne mentioned:

I was on a worksite yerterday - everyone who came on the 'site' (it was on the street but segmented off) signed the form that said they received the briefing. Very low work effort and logical, I thought, so likely to succeed.

Eventually, that will become like the biggest and most ubiquitous lie on the Internet:

I have read and agree to the T&C of use.

I.e. it will be meaningless.

And wasn't ACC supposed to remove the matter of being sued for personal injury? This looks close to allowing that to happen, but under the guise of 'safety' and being sued by a gummint dept.

The whole charade should do wonders for making NZ businesses more competitive, eh?

[Kirwee]

Don't you think this health and safety thing is a getting little out of hand?
I see that a school in the Wellington area is not allowing kids to climb trees otherwise they might be slapped with a heavy fine.
What a load of old rubbish.
I work from my home office and I think that before I go too far I had better appease these loonies and form a paper cut support group or something.
Of course before I do that I would have to form an orderly queue of one so not to upset anybody!

[Wayne]

A lot of schools stopped the tree climbing thing a long time ago in case the little ones got hurt.

I liked the comment in this mornings Herald - they don't do it a second time (re falling out of the tree), they learn.

[foss]

New Health & Safety Legislation

Does everyone realise the impact of the new health & safety legislation?

Unfortunately investors and body corporates in their wisdom are included. Owner occupiers are excluded. Someone drafting the legislation has shafted landlords. I don't understand why we are any more risky that any other residential property owner.

Responsible for contractors and any work on your property and accidents. Massive fines can be charged. Fines are not covered by insurance

[Bob Kane]

I've heard this mentioned several times but no-one has been able to clearly explain how a landlord could be fined.
Can you run through the events that would lead to a landlord being charged?

[flyernzl]

A rental property is only captured under the provisions of the Act if work is actually being carried out at that property.
So most of the time, when your tenant is happily living undistured in the place, it is not a place of work and the Act does not apply.

However, if you - or contarctors employed by you - enter the property to repair or renovate then it becomes a place of work and the Act is then enforceable.

Say a handrail is removed from some stairs at the property while the place is being painted and the tenant has not been warned that this was likely to happen so the tenant falls down the stairs as a result then you are liable.